You, Inflationists And Conflationists, Fear Me. I Understand. And You Should.

(I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.)

Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements.

We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man.

And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity.

In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony.

This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language.

The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty.

I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status.

And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech.

And this is precisely what you fear.

That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in.

I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others.

You fear your day in court.

As well you should.

Leave a Reply